Home › Forums › The NOT-Forum › Zach/Kevsky Debate › Reply To: Zach/Kevsky Debate
Kev: Zachary Fontes thanks for your reasoned response. 🙂 while I don’t agree with a lot of what you are saying, I understand why you are saying it and can see where you’re coming from. I too don’t believe in “fighting” the government. I hold the same belief in gritting and bearing it till you can escape, or change it through appropriate means. (Though I wouldn’t restrict myself to saying “legal” means, since that’s pretty arbitrary. What’s “legal” can be pretty bad sometimes. I would say biblical means.) I hope you know I am not an advocate for anarchy or revolution in a physical or violent sense. I think we can change the world through ideas and invention. I think we agree on those points. (To some degree).
For me, this is why I think it’s important to maintain ease of geographical mobility and escape from abuse of power. I know you understand that, because you’re using that logic to explain the need for multiple countries. The reason I say it hurts you is because a larger, stronger national government decreases the people’s mobility. Centralizing power means more people are hurt when that power is wrong or misused. Much like a sickness, it is easier to handle when it can be isolated to a smaller area. You can’t stop a sickness by spreading it all over the country. (By sickness I don’t mean government, I mean corruption). Logically, a corrupt city or state government is easier to escape than a corrupt national government. Wouldn’t it be? Or am I missing something here?
I don’t want to assume, but it feels like you’re saying the national government wouldn’t be corrupt because God says they won’t. I don’t believe that’s what the Bible says. If you think it does, Either the Bible is wrong…or you are as I can probably cite 1 or 2 examples of corrupt governments, if you need them. 😛
What, besides the Bible saying so, prevents national government from being corrupt? (And I know you have your yearly elected 7 kings in your government laid plan. But I mean in general, how does centralizing power to people outside of your own geographic area, help the people?
Currently we have people in cities making laws that negatively effect farmers and people living outside the cities. (As a very specific example) Currently we have people advocating for a ban on guns saying, “we need a law that bans guns because I can’t think of any reason anyone needs to own a gun”, while there are people in rural parts of the country who use guns at tools and they are needed for their livelihood. To what degree is it better to not have representation?
This is what I don’t understand. That you would rather abortion be legal nation wide, than a state have the ability to stand on principles held by its local population. I don’t think morality should be based on the whims of the crowd. The nation will not always be moral and they will not always elect moral leaders. I think being able to say, “as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord” is important.